Today's quizpollFollow

Enlightened self interest is a concept many people fail to fully understand; I felt it necessary to be long winded in explaining.

Based on imperfect information and the loose constraints placed on them by constituents.

But then gbaji wouldn't be able to contribute anymore.

A country without bureaucrats is no laughing matter. But a country with too many of them is a complete joke.

But it's often conservatives who think are thinking short term. Cutting taxes is often a short term gain, especially when the programs funded by those taxes are not cut as well.

Creating a better society is an investment that compounds itself. When people have cheaper health care, they have more income to spend on goods that provide greater utility, and so you get a more efficient economy that grows faster. Just as I said socialized programs don't always work, nor do capitalist ones. Private companies can actually ****** the economy, and we have antitrust laws to deal with that.

Transitioning blacks from slavery to fully equal status created was something that benefited me as a byproduct of creating a better society, but it also advanced the rate of our development. We had an overall more productive work force because blacks could now learn more valuable skills and contribute more to society.

I know you badly want to believe that the Dems propositions, even the ones which Republicans individually agree on, will create long term problems for the U.S., but the body of evidence points towards you being dead wrong.


1. Cut fraud, end lawsuits. Reducing fraud is a beneficial move, and one I technically agree with the Republicans on, as do the Dems. The problem is that fraud makes up such a small portion of the costs that even if we were able to magical stop all medical insurance fraud in the U.S. tomorrow we'd still not be much better off.It's something we should go for, but cracking down on fraud alone is far from enough.

2. Allow selling across state lines, let state regulate their own rules more. At best it will do nothing, and at worst it will increase the problem. Increased private competition hasn't helped in the past few decades and it isn't going to help now. There are too few restrictions on an industry that has directly opposing interests with its customers.

3. Don't raise - cut taxes. I could be blind and deaf and still know this was in at least one proposal.. This alone does nothing, and eliminating even the possibility that the best solution might happen to involve spending is at the core of the "find a conservative solution, even if it isn't the best," problem.

4. Establish high risk pools for really sick people. Nothing done to prevent companies from excluding individuals.

5. Live off of mommy and daddy's plan for a while. Beneficial maybe, but incredibly minor.

6. No federal money for plans covering abortion. Pork indeed.

I can't say I listed what you would consider the 'best' proposition by the Republicans, but I'm not a mind reader. Do the Republicans have some good suggestions? Sure, and the Dems agree. The issue that I see and that many Democrats see is that Republicans are rejecting massively beneficial proposals and simply playing games for political power. There is quite a bit that the Republicans and Democrats agree on, but the Republicans keep forcing 60 votes and keep calling for fresh start because many of them simply want Democrats to fail.

I also know I'm not the most informed person on the bulk of politics. I do need help forming my opinion. But I'm pretty darn good at figuring out who is making the best arguments.

Edited, Mar 2nd 2010 4:50pm by Allegory

No. It's still a long term gain. If you cut taxes but are unable (or unwilling) to cut spending, then it's reasonable to assume you would not have been able to cut spending if you hadn't cut taxes, right?

The deficit effect thus created hurts in the short term, but will make it harder to further increase spending, thus helping in the long run.

Cutting taxes, even if you fail to cut spending at the same time, is still better in terms of long term economic growth and private industry development than if you don't.



One must first clarify what they mean by "better society" though. There are quite a few examples of people who have used similar language to support policies which ultimately ended in pretty horrific disaster.




Sure. But what on earth makes you think that health care will actually be "cheaper"? You don't create money by taking from one pot and putting it in another. "The people" will almost certainly end out paying more per-person on health care under the current Dem proposals. I don't think anyone can rationally argue otherwise. That some individuals will pay less is somewhat irrelevant, right? The long term economic picture is going to be affected by total cost, not whether one person wins while another loses. It's the net effect that matters...



Yes. If only we had similar laws restricting government... Well. There's the Constitution, but fortunately for the liberals, they've managed to convince themselves that it's a living document and the protections within can just be changed or ignored when it's convenient. Gotta love circular justification!



Are you seriously comparing the movement from slavery to civil rights for black Americans to socialized medicine? That's more than a bit of a stretch...




By all means, share with me the "body of evidence" you are basing this on. The absolute best estimates right now show us breaking even in terms of deficit (but not total cost!) over the next 10 years, and then losing ground every year after that. Those estimates show only about half of those currently uninsured actually being insured as a result, ignore completely the unfunded mandates passed to the states (which we'll all have to pay for), and magically ignore any of a number of very simple and obvious market forces which will almost certainly result in changes to the status-quo factors those estimates are based on (in the "massively increase cost" direction).

What do you think happens when the government mandates that every citizen must buy a given product? Do you honestly believe that this will drive prices down?

Heck. Let's go in the opposite direction. How about you name any portion of either of the proposed bills which you can point to and explain how it will reduce total costs for health care. And I'm not talking about saving small amounts in one area. Show me where the magic pixie dust is in those bills which create the kind of cost savings which were the original driving force for reforming health care in the first place?

I don't see it. What I see is a set of bills which continue to use the same system, but just add to the scope. Saying that it will cut costs is like saying that if you have a leak in your pipes, you'll save water by running more water through them. It just doesn't work. It makes no sense. The same insurance companies will have their hand in the pie. Except now they'll have a larger captive customer base. The same relationship between employers, employees, and health care plans will exist that exist today. The same hidden cost structures will exist. The only things they really changed was to make the same thing bigger and add additional requirements and coverage which will have to be passed on to the consumers (which conveniently can't avoid it because the government will force them to buy it anyway). And if you can't pay? Well, the government will pick up the tab. Actually, the taxpayer will. And that will add to the long term cost even more...

Tell me why it's a good plan. Can you point to anything specific? I don't want to hear the rhetoric some politician said. I want you to point at specific provisions of the bill(s) and tell me how those provisions will make health care better. There's a big difference between what a politician claims a bill will do, and what the bill will actually do. And in this case, it's a pretty big whopper.


What's startling is that you really do seem to be unaware that the big losers here are young people. I suspect you've been listening to too much rhetoric and not enough fact. You should correct that.


Edited, Mar 2nd 2010 7:42pm by gbaji

Uh oh... we lose Michael Moore

I'm heartbroken that we can't be called the party of Michael Moore any longer. Heartbroken, I say!

So, Allegory, how's the whole "Changing gbaji's point of view by arguing with him in a different way" thing working out?

If you'd just stop interrupting. jeez.

That's not what Allegory said his criteria was though.



That's extremely debatable. But it's also irrelevant to this discussion. Allegory said that he supported the current Dem proposals because they were better for him specifically and for everyone over the long term. His criteria was pretty clearly about cost compared to benefit.




It covers only about half of those currently uninsured. And "cost controls" is a buzzword, not a reality. There is nothing in either of the bills to suggest that the total cost for health care nationwide will be reduced over time. As I already pointed out the CBO estimates show not just increased cost, but increased cost beyond the increased revenue generated once you get past the 10 year mark.

You can say "It's got cost controls" all day long, but if even after those controls, it'll still cost us more over time, the criteria Allegory set isn't being met.



It's not just about premiums though, is it? It's about "total cost". If we make up for those premiums by paying higher taxes in order to subsidize some of the care, we're still paying more total money.

If I take $2,000 out of your taxes each year and then use that money to subsidize your health care, resulting in you paying $1000 less in premiums each year, have I helped you or hurt you? Yeah. I've hurt you. That's essentially what the Dems are doing. It's a shell game. With our money...



The most commonly stated reason for needing health reform in the first place (by Dems) is that the existing system was too expensive and people couldn't afford it. Wold you like me to go dig up a bunch of quotes from Obama on this? It was a pretty common campaign topic. It's how they "sold" the need for health care to the public. Now, you and I both know that the real reason they wanted to do it was to expand coverage and make it more socialized. But that just makes this yet another example of how liberals lie in order to gain support for their agenda.


Public support for the need for health care reform was built on the cost issue Joph. Plain and simple...

You were doing something? I hadn't noticed...

Oh. And anytime you're ready with that body of evidence thing, just feel free to post that sucker. Not like I'm waiting with baited breath or anything, but it's your convictions at issue here. Not mine.

Then why did you write this?

Allegory vs Gbaji is like crossing the streams, but with words.

I like it